DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

I argue from evidence and you call it a game? Ha.

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

Are you playing macho tag or something? I'm not denying anything. Show me some evidence, on anything you are concerned about and state clearly why these temperature sensors corrupt models. Why they cannot be adjusted for. Until then your concerns are unfounded.

You have yet to show how these anamolous stations poison the analysis.

All evidence points to why you think some of these concerns are vitally important ...because you simply have no clue as to how modeling works.

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

Irrelevant concern. See above. I already replied why proxy data is used for trajectories and can help set a wide range of response, that's called modeling.

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do ...

You pretend to be some sort of scientist. That is the game you are playing.

Modeling is what you do when you want to see if going on with real experimentation is worthwhile. It is not proof of anything but proof of concept. If you want to trash the world economy over that, go ahead.

Proxies that have a margin of error that is greater than the actual change of temperature makes for bad science.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Here's another study on modeling the CO2 lag.

why model something that is illustrated clearly in the ice core samples? Sounds like somebody is trying to blow smoke.

Oh for the love of...

Ok, you're just joking now, right?

what makes you an expert on anything? There truly is no reason to model ice core samples.

. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other

. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And Bigfoot, the Illuminati, and Elvis will use the Large Hadron Collider to time-travel to World War II and save Hitler's brain to do it, right?

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other

. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And Bigfoot, the Illuminati, and Elvis will use the Large Hadron Collider to time-travel to World War II and save Hitler's brain to do it, right?

I give you a quote from a member of the IPCC and you come back with crap like that. What are you, ten years old?

Not that I think man-made climate change is a lie, I do think we are screwing up the climate, but...science has agreed overwhelmingly on topics and theories in the past, only to be proven wrong later.

everyone agreeing doesn't equal being right.

/again, I am not a denier.

Well, there have been reasons for people to be wrong in the past. Columbus couldn't see the world from space, so perhaps he could doubt the world was spherical... a lot... Hate to break it to you mr science guy, but Columbus vs the flat Earth is bullshiat of the highest order.1) Aristotle (384-322 BC) - proved the Earth was round via Lunar eclipses

Really?? Cause CERN has already called Einsteins theory of relativity to be questioned...Turns out there are things like neutrinos that are faster than the speed of light... So even things like E=mc2 might not be fact...

Yet somehow we know for fact why the earth is warming??? lol

Uh...nice irony...you do know they determined that the FtL measurement was an error?

But to suggest there might be error or fraud in global warming "facts" is heresy. Gotcha.

. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

chuckufarlie:You pretend to be some sort of scientist. That is the game you are playing.

Again, ha. Now, back to the discussion, please tell the world why past data is unsuitable for climate models, by stating how the data fundamentally poisons the models, and how this data's uncertainty can never be built in.

Modeling is what you do when you want to see if going on with real experimentation is worthwhile. It is not proof of anything but proof of concept. If you want to trash the world economy over that, go ahead.

Your ignorance is showing again. If you cannot bother to even so much as open Wikipedia on the subject of data modeling, let alone climate modeling, then what weight should anyone give your still unfounded concerns?

Proxies that have a margin of error that is greater than the actual change of temperature makes for bad science.

And this cannot be introduced into the models because? Again, do your homework.

I hope all the deniers here are watching carefully at how chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc and Sevenizgudget their asses handed to them every thread.

With every post they demonstrate a ridiculous combination of conspiracy theories, extraordinary bad science and an inability to form rational arguments. They just simply fire out an endless stream of long debunked talking points.

These guys are not skeptics ... they are weak minded political puppets doing their masters' bidding.

What it means is, yes. Just a coincidence that the only sites that picked this up are the same sites that promote the idea the President is illegitimate, the UN is trying to take over the world, the world cup soccer ball looks suspiciously like the Obama logo, and every other dumb ass conspiracy they can come up with so idiots like you will keep reading and propping up their business. I wonder how many of those you believe. Maybe all of them. You know what's really going on, don't you worry. You're onto the rest of us oops I said too much!

Denying Climate change is about as stupid as denying that the sun rises.

That said. I'm pretty damn dubious about the Humancentric part of it. But hey, I keep an open mind.

The problem I have with this "if it's group think it must be RIGHT" mentality.

To whit, I fall back on how the anthropological community celebrated Margaret Mead and how everyone that disagreed with her was ostracized as an unscientific wacko.

If you didn't agree with her... you were labeled a kook and a fool... in much the way that scientists today seem super eager to do to anyone that doesn't agree with human caused climate change.

On Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa", Dr. Martin Orans, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside, opens his book "Not Even Wrong" (Harvard University Press, 1983), thusly;

"Occasionally a message carried by the media finds an audience so eager to receive it that it is willing to suspend all critical judgment and adopt the message as its own. So it was with Margaret Mead's celebrated 'Coming of Age in Samoa.'"

That right there pretty much sums up the same thing I notice about Climate change.That we have this overly receptive audience that just wants to lap up the idea that humans are the be all and end all of the climate change issue and that people are suspending critical judgement.

Even today ... after her work was proven to be bunk... and that the girls she interviewed for her Saoma work admitted they'd fed her a pack of lies because they simply told her what she wanted to hear... even today there are still people in the anthropological community that continue to teach her findings as gospel truth.

Scientific groups and people are made up of human beings, and human beings have a history of playing favorites with pet theories and ignoring evidence unless it fits their agenda.

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

----------

The first time I heard this ridiculous argument (that scientists make stuff up to get money) I heard it from a morbidly obese drug addict on the radio."

WTF? Where did you find what in anything I posted that even remotely sounds like, "scientists make stuff up to get money"? I was critiquing the current peer review process, with an eye to the fact that scientists -- all scientists, not just those in one camp or another (and yes, there are camps) -- are human, have personal interests and motivations and reputations to protect, and are not beyond reproach.

But now that you mention it, at the risk of sounding like a "morbidly obese drug addict", yes - scientists sometimes DO makestuffuptogetmoney (and recognition, etc.).

Which is why it's important to acknowledge that while science is a noble pursuit, scientists are not always noble people. The practical scientific process for gaining, vetting, reconciling and disseminating knowledge MUST take this into account if the integrity of the institution of science is to be maintained. In climate change and any other consensus-driven area of research, sufficient protections against unchecked development of institutional confirmation bias do not exist today. In other words, the framework on which Phil Plait bases his gloating and smug ridicule is significantly flawed.

GAT_00:tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

Which is why I said versus the 20th century average.

First rule of climate skepticism: look at the wrong scale.

The basic point is this: humans have, for the first time in history, become numerous enough and polluting enough to alter the climate on a global scale, thus passing from the Holocene (or recent period) to the Anthropocene. In other words, since we started to burn fossil fuels while doubling our population every generation or so, we've been wrecking the place.

6,000,000,000 years is not the time scale on which to prove or refute this point. Nors is 50,000,000 years. The proper time scale to look at for anthropogenic climate change is recent history.

Take the hockey stick, no, not that hockey stick, the other hockey stck. Human population was under a few hundred million until modern times. It only began to rise in the last few centuries. Meanwhile, most of the carbon humans put into the atmosphere has been put into the atmosphere since 1755, when coal-burning on an industrial scale first began in England.

In 1845, the USA was still getting most of its heat and power from wood, which is carbon neutral because the carbon put into the atmosphere by burning is sucked back out by growing the replacement wood.

You can't destroy the world by burning wood. You can't destroy the world by lighting lamps with whale oil.

But you can destroy the environment we have evolved in by releasing millions of years of fossil sunshine all at once. And by making concrete by burning limestone. And by deforesting vast areas of tropical and boreal forest.

The proper time scale to study if you want to prove that humans are disrupting the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and biomass of the Earth? Try the mid-nineteenth century to now. Oh wait, the greenhouse theory is older than that! And scientists were already convinced that the world was warming by then! And we've got global climate records dating back to then!

My, this is a fine how-do-ye-do isn't it?

Your 6,000,000,000 years (or 6,000) is the wrong "population" for your "sample size" even if the idea of "sample size" was relevant to this type of problem. But it isn't. And the population that is relevant is pushing 7.5 billion--in 1800 it was only 1 billion. That might have been sustainable if only we'd stuck to burning wood but there's a lot of reasons to suspect that even one billion people living above their means the way us Westerners do means doom unless we get our act together. And it won't be taxes that save us. It will be finding non-destructive, sustainable ways to create an economy that won't cost us the world.

Like when you pretended the 2009 budget was Obama's? That was something. Not a fact. But it was something. Thank you for again demonstrating your inability to address facts and reliance solely on ad hominem.

Again, ha. Now, back to the discussion, please tell the world why past data is unsuitable for climate models, by stating how the data fundamentally poisons the models, and how this data's uncertainty can never be built in.

Hint: see the graphs on this page and explain how the uncertainty in early data will compromise the model.

Modeling is what you do when you want to see if going on with real experimentation is worthwhile. It is not proof of anything but proof of concept. If you want to trash the world economy over that, go ahead.

Your ignorance is showing again. If you cannot bother to even so much as open Wikipedia on the subject of data modeling, let alone climate modeling, then what weight should anyone give your still unfounded concerns?

Proxies that have a margin of error that is greater than the actual change of temperature makes for bad science.

And this cannot be introduced into the models because? Again, do your homework.

Why do you pretend to be some sort of a scientist when you ask so many stupid questions. You compound that stupidity by referring to wikipedia.

I know what modeling is and your remarks show that you do not.

Let me walk you through this little problem with the data. According to the "scientists" the temperatures starting rising in the 1850s. How can they make that statement when the margin of data prior to 1850 is larger than the actual change since then? Do you not see a problem here?

These "scientists" tell us that we are experiencing higher temperatures now than any time in recorded history. What they fail to tell us is that recorded history really only goes back to the 1980s because that is when most of the recording stations were installed. What they do not tell us is that the area around lots of those stations has changed drastically in the years since they were installed and that the temperature would naturally increase because of that change.

Are you aware that if one removes the stations installed since the 1980s from the data, the warmest period in the USA is in the 1930s and not today? While that is not world wide, it implies something significant.

chuckufarlie:DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Here's another study on modeling the CO2 lag.

why model something that is illustrated clearly in the ice core samples? Sounds like somebody is trying to blow smoke.

Oh for the love of...

Ok, you're just joking now, right?

what makes you an expert on anything? There truly is no reason to model ice core samples.

So lets start with the basics. how do you go from measured dissolved ice co2 levels at all core depths, to expected atmospheric co2? How do you determine past (proxy) temperature from ice core samples? When does thaw and seasons start/end? Hint...the answer is modeling. And the ice core samples are proxies.

Farking Canuck:I hope all the deniers here are watching carefully at how chuckufarlie/nicksteel/etc and Sevenizgudget their asses handed to them every thread.

With every post they demonstrate a ridiculous combination of conspiracy theories, extraordinary bad science and an inability to form rational arguments. They just simply fire out an endless stream of long debunked talking points.

These guys are not skeptics ... they are weak minded political puppets doing their masters' bidding.

No matter how many times they're shot down, they just keep repeating the same tired arguments, except that sevenizgud did change the starting point for his "there is no warming" graph once the actual mean temperature exceeded his previous cherry-picked starting point.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl:chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.

The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.

Btw, the ice core lags are also based on models, but you know that, right? And you would never champion uses of models on data on one hand while dismissing the same data and modeling on the other, yes?

Here's another study on modeling the CO2 lag.

why model something that is illustrated clearly in the ice core samples? Sounds like somebody is trying to blow smoke.

Oh for the love of...

Ok, you're just joking now, right?

what makes you an expert on anything? There truly is no reason to model ice core samples.

So lets start with the basic ...

Sorry but the IPCC scientists did not use ice core samples as proxy data for temperature readings. They used tree ring growth.

I'm still looking for the "hundreds of thousands" of climate change refuges the climate change alarmists said we would have by 2010.

I'm also still perplexed that we have had snow as recently as... This year. Since climate change alarmists said we would have none by this time.

I noticed recently that people were once again bemoaning the fact that the United States didn't sign on board the "Screw The United States" treaty more commonly known as the Kyoto Protocols. All the smartest smart people in the world got together to come up with a plan to help global warming... Then exempted "developing" countries from it resulting in potentially trillions of dollars in economic cost, particularly to the United States... All to slow down global warming by a fraction of a fraction of a degree.

I mean its almost like they said to themselves "Let's come up with a plan that will do basically nothing what so ever to stop the problem we're 'concerned' about but will hamstring the United States and the Western world economically"

I mean its like they had another agenda or something not related to global warming.

What it means is, yes. Just a coincidence that the only sites that picked this up are the same sites that promote the idea the President is illegitimate, the UN is trying to take over the world, the world cup soccer ball looks suspiciously like the Obama logo, and every other dumb ass conspiracy they can come up with so idiots like you will keep reading and propping up their business. I wonder how many of those you believe. Maybe all of them. You know what's really going on, don't you worry. You're onto the rest of us oops I said too much!

that interview was picked up and reported by every major news source.

It was a real interview where German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer gave an eye-opening interview to Neue Zürcher Zeitu

I've read Mr. Plait's very fine book and I now see he's reduced to writing sub Fark level rants about "Deniers".Real scientists do not find themselves trying to publish sentences like " Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap"